Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Here's another frightening case of police abuse and corruption. I know no one reads or comments on this blog, particularly on these types of posts, but I continue to post them because I think it's important to know that blind faith in the goodness of our government is misguided. We should be ever vigilant lest we lose our ability to enforce our natural rights to the numbing endlessness of our bureacracies and the excuses they make.

This story is horrifying. Read all about it:

Derek was house-sitting for a friend on the day he was murdered. Sandra Lopez, the ex-wife of Derek's friend, arrived with an 11-year-old son and a 6-year-old daughter just shortly before the police showed up. After helping Sandra and her children remove some of their personal belongings, Derek was sitting placidly on the front step, clad in jeans and a hooded sweatshirt, when an unmarked police car and a blacked-out SUV arrived and disgorged their murderous cargo.

There's more too. Here's the worst of it:

On the day he was killed, Derek had been under both physical and electronic (and, according to the civil complaint, illegal) surveillance. Police personnel who observed him knew that his behavior was completely innocuous. And despite the fact that he had done nothing to warrant such treatment, he was considered an “un-indicted co-conspirator” in a purported narcotics ring run by the Pagans.

The police vehicles screeched to a halt in front of the house shortly after 4:00 p.m. They ordered Lopez and her children away from Derek – who, predictably, had risen to his feet by this time -- and then ordered him to remove his hands from his the pockets of his sweatshirt.

Less than a second later – according to several eyewitnesses at the scene – Derek was hit with a taser blast that knocked him sideways and sent him into convulsions. His right hand involuntarily shot out of its pocket, clenching spasmodically.

“Not in front of the kids,” Derek gasped, as he tried to force his body to cooperate. “Get the kids out of here.”

The officers continued to order Derek to put up his hands; he was physically unable to comply.

So they tased him again. This time he was driven to his side and vomited into a nearby flower bed.

Howard Mixon, a contractor who had been working nearby, couldn't abide the spectacle.

“That's not necessary!” he bellowed at the assailants. “That's overkill! That's overkill!”

At this point, one of the heroes in blue (or, in this case, black) swaggered over to Mixon and snarled, “I'll f*****g show you overkill!” Having heroically shut up an unarmed civilian, the officer turned his attention back to Derek – who was being tased yet again.

“I'm trying to get my hands out,” Derek exclaimed, desperately trying to make his tortured and traumatized body obey his will. Horrified, his friend Sandra screamed at the officers: “He is trying to get his hands out, he cannot get his hands out!”

Having established that Derek – an innocent man who had survived two tours of duty in Iraq – was defenseless, one of Wilmington's Finest closed in for the kill.

Lt. William Brown of the Wilmington Police Department, who was close enough to seize and handcuff the helpless victim, instead shot him in the chest at point-blank range, tearing apart his vitals with three .40-caliber rounds. He did this after Derek had said, repeatedly and explicitly, that he was trying to cooperate. He did this despite the fact that witnesses on the scene had confirmed that Derek was trying to cooperate. He did this in front of a traumatized mother and two horrified children.

Why was this done?

According to Sgt. Steven Elliot of the WPD, Brown slaughtered Derek Hale because he “feared for the safety of his fellow officers and believed that the suspect was in a position to pose an imminent threat.” That subjective belief was sufficient justification to use “deadly force,” according to Sgt. Elliot.

The “position” Derek was in, remember, was that of wallowing helplessly in his own vomit, trying to overcome the cumulative effects of three completely unjustified Taser attacks.

Utterly ridiculous and frightening. I left out the part where this guy had no criminal record and was honorably discharged from the military due to injuries sustained in combat. The guy was never even remotely a target of, or connected to, the investigation.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

and what's best for you is for you to give them your money. All of it, whenever they want it, whether they deserve it or whether it's illegal doesn't matter.

Check this out - DISGUSTING

Florida: City to Seize Homes Over a $5 Parking TicketBrooksville, Florida proposes to foreclose homes and seize cars over less than $20 in parking tickets.

The city council in Brooksville, Florida voted this week to advance a proposal granting city officials the authority to place liens and foreclose on the homes of motorists accused of failing to pay a single $5 parking ticket. Non-homeowners face having their vehicles seized if accused of not paying three parking offenses.

According to the proposed ordinance, a vehicle owner must pay a parking fine within 72 hours if a meter maid claims his automobile was improperly parked, incurring tickets worth between $5 and $250. Failure to pay this amount results in the assessment of a fifty-percent "late fee." After seven days, the city will place a lien on the car owner's home for the amount of the ticket plus late fees, attorney fees and an extra $15 fine. The fees quickly turn a $5 ticket into a debt worth several hundred dollars, growing at a one-percent per month interest rate. The ordinance does not require the city to provide notice to the homeowner at any point so that after ninety days elapse, the city will foreclose. If the motorist does not own a home, it will seize his vehicle after the failure to pay three parking tickets.

Any motorist who believes a parking ticket may have been improperly issued must first pay a $250 "appeal fee" within seven days to have the case heard by a contract employee of the city. This employee will determine whether the city should keep the appeal fee, plus the cost of the ticket and late fees, or find the motorist not guilty. Council members postponed a decision on whether to reduce this appeal fee until final adoption of the measure which is expected in the first week of April.

The full text of the ordinance is available in a 605k PDF file at the source link below.

This is a product of a system of government that uses law enforcement as a source of income. As a nation we really need to address this form of government abuse. If it's really about enforcing necessary laws, then budget to enforce them and stop inventing ways for local governments and police forces to gather more revenue.

Again, in the immortal words of Jane's Addiction . . . "You know the gang and the government they're no different . . . the gang and the government they're no di-fer-ent . . . It makes me 1%, it makes me . . . ONLY ONE PERCENT."***

I'm more than willing to morally condemn people who mock the Pope. Generally, seeing as how common it is in America, I find it unfunny and unoriginal (note: I'm not Catholic and not really religious - doesn't mean I can't respect the good parts of most religions). Anyway, I do not believe that any government should infringe upon a person's natural right to spout out their opinions or beliefs - even if they are dumb.

In Lithuania, a television executive has been fined for airing a show about the Pope that mocks him and is offensive to most of the population (so you'd think the population would express its outrage by boycotting the chanel - but of course not). Here's an excerpt:

The bad news is, that wasn't the end of it, and now it's not the usual gaggle of church ladies but government busybodies who are sticking their noses where they don't belong.

Lithuania's television watchdog has fined the director of MTV Networks Baltic for airing Popetown, a controversial cartoon series that pokes fun at the Roman Catholic Church. The 13-member Radio and Television Commission voted unanimously to fine Marius Veselis 3000 litas ($1435), commission chairman Jonas Liniauskas said.

The cartoons, which depict the Pope as a rotund 77-year-old obsessed with his pogo-stick and surrounded by toys, provoked a storm of criticism in Lithuania, where 80 per cent of the population is Roman Catholic. The commission made its decision after the Inspector of Journalists' Ethics, Romas Gudaitis, said Popetown should be banned because it portrayed the clergy as destructive and incited religious discrimination.

Do Lithuanian catholics, those poor things, not have an off button on their TV sets? Shall we pass the collection plate to alleviate their suffering?

SAN JOSE, California (AP) -- Consumers are bombarded with warnings about identity theft. Publicized threats range from mailbox thieves and lost laptops to the higher-tech methods of e-mail scams and corporate data invasions.

Now, experts are warning that photocopiers could be a culprit as well.

That's because most digital copiers manufactured in the past five years have disk drives -- the same kind of data-storage mechanism found in computers -- to reproduce documents.

As a result, the seemingly innocuous machines that are commonly used to spit out copies of tax returns for millions of Americans can retain the data being scanned.

If the data on the copier's disk aren't protected with encryption or an overwrite mechanism, and if someone with malicious motives gets access to the machine, industry experts say sensitive information from original documents could get into the wrong hands.

This is odd. I wonder if it's like the almost invisible yellow printing that every new copier prints on your documents so that the government can identify you if you send threatening letters. I've linke to that before on this site, but I don't think it's still in the archives.

Monday, March 19, 2007

SARASOTA -- John Coffin won't spend any more time in jail for beating up two sheriff's deputies inside his house, striking one in the head with a Taser gun he took from the other.

Apparently, this is a civil matter (the cops were serving civil papers, which makes them no different than you or me in terms of what their rights and powers are), but they tried to force their way into these people's homes and then, after unlawfully entering the premises, tried to arrest a woman for "obstructing." Of course, she was only obstructing their attempt to break the law.

But Coffin, 56, had a right to defend his family and property because the deputies had no right to be in Coffin's house in the first place, De Furia said.

"Law enforcement was responsible for the chain of events here," De Furia said. "I think in situations like this, officers become so frustrated they go beyond what the law allows them to do."

The fight started when Coffin heard his wife screaming in pain, went into the garage and saw two deputies arresting her on the floor.

The deputies were trying to serve Coffin with civil papers that had been given five days earlier. They had entered the garage even though they did not have a search warrant or arrest warrant.

And they arrested Coffin's wife, Cynthia, 50, on obstruction charges even though she had no obligation to follow their orders to bring her husband outside.

"The most critical is the fact the officers broke the law by stopping the garage door from going down," and then entering the garage, De Furia said.

Wow, a judge who finally gets it right. I know a lot of former judges complain that they got tired of hearing police conforming their testimony, outright lying, and abusing the tacit agreement that Judges will give more weight to the testimony of officers (and, by the way, where is that in the Constitution*). I'm guessing that's what happened here.

Relatives applauded, and Coffin walked out of the courthouse with only a $358 bill for court costs. The sentence surprised even defense attorneys, who had suggested De Furia sentence Coffin to probation.

Prosecutors had asked for more than a year of prison time because of "the totality of the case" and the injuries to deputies James Lutz and Stacy Ferris, whose name is now Stacy Brandau.

The two deputies testified about their injuries Tuesday -- three blows to the head with the butt of the Taser gun knocked Lutz unconscious.

"I just ask that he doesn't get away with this," Brandau told the judge.

Assistant State Attorney Jeff Young told the judge the case "could have been over in five seconds" if the Coffins "had simply come out and cooperated."

"That is a man who took it upon himself to beat up two police officers," Young said.

De Furia said that while he believed the deputies' mistakes were not intentional, the Coffins had every right to lock doors, try to close their garage door and not cooperate.

"What took place in the house was unfortunate," De Furia said, "but Mr. Coffin ... had a right to resist."

At least one judge has read some John Locke. I'm really happy to see people being protected from the police. Of course the police aren't actually accountable for their actions. If they were, then the two officers who broke into the home by preventing the woman involved from shutting her garage, and then assaulted and battered her . . . well, they'd be under arrest and on trial. I guess that's just a pipe dream though.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Man shoots intruders trying to break into his home pretending to be the police.

An eastern Kentucky man fatally shot one of two alleged intruders who claimed to be police officers, according to sheriff's officials.

The other suspect was arrested and charged with burglary and impersonating a police officer, a sheriff's report said.

Jason Daniels, 23, of Ashland, shot Robert Lewis Chapman, 50, of Greenup in the chest, shoulder and wrist Wednesday night, the Boyd County Sheriff's office said.

Adam C. Justice, 22, of Summitt, was lodged in the Boyd County jail.

Boyd County Sheriff Terry Keelin said a grand jury would decide if Daniels would be charged.

The intruders allegedly broke into a home where Daniels was staying after Daniels refused to answer the door. The men had pounded on the door claiming to be police officers with a search warrant, Keelin said.

The men then tied Daniels up in the bathroom and ransacked the house, the sheriff's report said. Meanwhile, Daniels freed himself and got a 9 mm pistol from a cabinet, the report said.

First, they better not charge this guy. The people who broke into his home were armed, and were clearly a threat to his safety and property. Plus, this is the sort of thing that happens when cops do things like send in the SWAT teams in a . . . get this . . . shoplifting investigation. By the way, you should really check out that link, it's embarassing how rambo-esque our cops are. In that case they terrorized a kid in a Jeep who was just waiting for his mom to come out of the grocery store.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

This excellent post from Jacob Sullum over at Hit & Run puts forth some questions to conservatives that I have always tried to get solid answers to. Ultimately, I want to know what makes you a conservative? Is it that you hold certain specific beliefs, and if so, what are they; what happens if you only mostly hold to conservative beliefs? Is there an underlying philosophy to which you adhere? Anyway, Sullum puts some of these questions out there using specific examples. For instance he writes:

I have long searched for the unifying thread that ties together the seemingly disparate positions typically advocated by people on "the right." Why does opposition to gun control tend to go hand in hand with support for drug control (National Review's editors being an honorable exception on that score)? What does banning flag burning have in common with repealing restrictions on political ads? Why does pro-life on abortion and assisted suicide become pro-death on capital punishment? How does support for freedom of contract jibe with opposition to gay marriage? What do lower taxes have to do with prohibiting cloning? How is support for free markets reconciled with bans on migrant labor and online gambling?

I think he has some serious questions, especially the juxtaposition of the pro-life and anti-death penaly question. It seems to me that these are purely relative positions. The only real thread tying the two issues together is the government authority that allows (in most every instance) people to tell other people what is "good" and "right."

I don't want to violate anyone's copyright, but I hope citing much of this post is fair (or at least acceptable use). Here goes:

"It's impossible to say that conservatives want 'small government' above all," he concedes, "when most of us want expanded governmental efforts to crack down on terrorists, crooks and illegal immigrants. Yes, we generally favor 'less regulation,' but we also want more restrictions on abortion, pornography and desecration of the flag." Is there some theory about the proper role of government underlying those policy preferences? Medved never really says, beyond the idea that the government should foster good things and crack down on bad things.

One of those good things is capitalism, except when it isn't (emphasis added):

We favor free markets and small government not for their own sake but because the profit system represents the best possible means to encourage wholesome, constructive choices. The only way to make money in a free marketplace is to benefit and bless other people: to provide them with a product or a service they choose to buy. You enrich yourself and enhance your own power by providing your neighbors with what they want.

As long as it's not drugs. Or gangster rap. Or pornography. Or lap dances. Or abortion. Or an opportunity to bet on football. Presumably Medved-style conservatives see no benefit or blessing in these activities because they are not wholesome or constructive. (Does that mean no one makes money by providing them?) Yet many left-liberals are willing to tolerate such transactions, even while seeking to ban the sale of handguns, trans fats, harp seal fur, or drinks in smoky bars. Is this because they do not draw distinctions or care about consequences? Or is it because they draw different distinctions and care about different consequences?

Likewise, Medved asserts that "liberals want us to continue to pour foreign aid into the most dysfunctional nations on earth." Like Iraq? No, not like Iraq, because Saddam was evil! The rulers of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia "aren't all that good," Medved concedes, but they're our friends. So much for eschewing moral relativism and making clear distinctions between right and wrong.

Instead of elucidating the differences in values and principles that distinguish modern American conservatism, Medved settles for smugly assuming his own moral and intellectual superiority. The "core of conservatism," it seems, is a dark, mushy mess.

It seems to me that conservatism and liberalism share one common thread - if we believe something is good or bad, we will outlaw it or require it as we see fit. It's ultimately like each is its own populist culture, and the two battle back and forth for the power to determine what is "good" and what is "bad." Unfortunately, what gets caught in the crossfire tends to be individual liberties. The sad thing is that each group really only cares about collective rights. Like the rights of parents, but only to the extent that they don't spank their kids or don't tell them that certain lifestyles are good or bad. It's really rather ridiculous how the views of self-identifying conservatives or liberals will change based on the substitution of certain factors or buzzwords.

Hopefully, someone can explain to me what makes someone a conservative or a liberal because it damn sure isn't a coherent philosophy.

Crystal Brown, 17, wipes away tears in St. Paul, Minn., as she looks at a notice she had posted around her neighborhood after her dog Chevey went missing in February. Two weeks ago, Brown received a gift-wrapped package with her severed dog's head inside. Her new puppy, Diesel, plays beside her.

ST. PAUL (AP) — A 17-year-old girl who spent weeks looking for her missing dog unwrapped a box left on her doorstep and found the pet's severed head inside, authorities said.

Homicide investigators were looking into the case because of the "implied" terroristic threat, St. Paul Police Sgt. Jim Gray said. The Humane Society of the United States said Wednesday it was offering a reward of up to $2,500 for information leading to an arrest and conviction.

"This was extraordinarily heinous," said Dale Bartlett, the Humane Society's deputy manager for animal cruelty issues. "I deal with hundreds and hundreds of cruelty cases each year. When I read about this case, it took my breath away. It's horrible."

After Crystal Brown's 4-year-old Australian shepherd mix wandered away last month, she put up "missing" posters in her neighborhood and went door to door looking for him. She called the St. Paul animal shelter and rode the bus there several times.

"I felt empty," Crystal told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis. "I couldn't talk to anyone. He was my dog. It was just me and him. ... I told him everything and he never shared any of my secrets."

Two weeks ago, a gift-wrapped box was left at the house Crystal shares with her grandmother. The box had batteries on top, and a note that said "Congratulations Crystal. This side up. Batteries included."

Crystal opened the box and found her dog's head inside. The box also contained Valentine's Day candy.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Could England get any worse? Seriously, if we have any overseas readers (or more than three or four) can you explain how you have grown so weak in the face of government. Check out this "secret plan," bunch of idiotic bastards:

Babies could be vaccinated with brain-altering chemicals to stop them getting hooked on drugs and cigarettes in later life.

Newborns would have jabs which could prevent addiction to cocaine, heroin or tobacco, under secret Downing Street plans.

Details of the extraordinary proposal to stop the annual £20 billion cost of drug misuse are in a leaked No 10 policy document.

Scientists have already developed a drug called naltrexone that eases heroin withdrawal symptoms. A cocaine vaccine called TA-CD has now been developed, the document says.

Ministers could also crack down on drug dens by having the post scanned for supplies using modern technology, while police helicopters would use revolutionary laser radar systems to test the air for chemicals used to make drugs.

The document, reportedly being considered by Tony Blair's working group on crime, talks of "immunotherapies" developed in secret to protect a generation.

It says: "A young person could be immunised and the drugs would never reach or affect the brain. Drug-related crimes could be reduced if vaccines can be successfully developed to reduce the craving."

Also, babies would have "jabs?" That's your word?

I love government imposed utopias. Seriously, is Joss Whedon writing their proposed legislation so that he can get a sequel to Serentity made? I can't imagine a legitimate reason to potentially subject babies brains to vaccinations that we don't know the potential effects of. Maybe the babies won't crave drugs, but they also won't crave getting up in the morning or studying or anything really.

* A brief explanation of the title. In Serenity, Joss Whedon created a plot whereby the ruling government secretly put a pacification drug in the air on a newly colonized planet. The citizens on that planet, after breathing in the chemical mostly laid down and died. On about a tenth of the population, the drug had the opposite effect, creating a vast number of people who were hyper-agressive. It's a good movie. You should buy it.

This guy, Michael Crook, kept filing ridiculous claims under the DCMA forcing people in many cases to remove materials from their websites.

Here is the release from the Electronic Fronteir Foundation:

DMCA Abuser Apologizes for Takedown Campaign

Michael Crook Agrees to Stop Attacks on Free Speech

San Francisco - Michael Crook, the man behind a string of meritless online copyright complaints, has agreed to withdraw those complaints, take a copyright law course, and apologize for interfering with the free speech rights of his targets.

The agreement settles a lawsuit against Crook filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of Jeff Diehl, the editor of the Internet magazine 10 Zen Monkeys. Diehl was forced to modify an article posted about Crook's behavior in a fake sex-ad scheme after Crook sent baseless Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices, claiming to be the copyright holder of an image used in the story. In fact, the image was from a Fox News program and legally used as part of commentary on Crook. But Crook repeated his claims and then attempted to use the same process to get the image removed from other websites reporting on his takedown campaign.

"Crook's legal threats interfered with legitimate debate about his controversial online behavior," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "Public figures must not be allowed to use bogus copyright claims to squelch speech."

If you ask me, it's pretty hilarious that they actually made him take a class.

Seven months after a conclave of scientists downgraded the distant heavenly body to a "dwarf planet," a state representative in New Mexico aims to give the snubbed world back some of its respect. State lawmakers will vote Tuesday on a bill that proposes "as Pluto passes overhead through New Mexico's excellent night skies, it be declared a planet."

Why? Because the legislators think that the IAU dissed Pluto's discoverer (and New Mexico native) Clyde Tombaugh. Does this mean that public school text books sold in New Mexico will have to be changed?

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

An anecdotal point against gun control. In those situations where the police can help, it often takes valuable minutes for them to show up - minutes that people often do not have. This is why an armed society is often a more polite society. The woman in the excerpt below will agree (emphasis is mine):

As the attack continued, people were yelling at the man to stop and honking their horns, Stuckey said. She said she called 911.

"He was just standing over her hacking away," said Dolly Baker, who had just left the Save-A-Lot store next door when she saw the attack.

Baker said she watched the man pour gasoline on the victim then try to strike a match.

"He was literally trying to kill that lady in broad daylight," she said.

Baker said a passer-by stopped the attack.

"He told the man, 'Stop, or I'm going to shoot. And if you run, I'm going to kill you,' " Baker said.

The man held Watson at bay until police arrived at the scene.

"Right now, all we know is that (Watson) attacked his wife. For what reason, we don't know," Jackson Police Department Sgt. Eric Smith said.

Police said they are looking for the passer-by who stopped the attack and would like to talk to him but don't know who he is or where he went.

The incident occurred about 3:50 p.m.

Smith said he did not know exactly how many times Gracie Watson was stabbed but said it was more than 10 times.

Two things, I'm glad that man was around, but if I were him, I wouldn't talk to the police either. I'd hope that the attacker is prosecuted to the fullest.

Police clearly have too much power. It doesn't help when they are protected by media idiots.

The city’s SWAT team, along with celebrity cops and camera crews from Armed & Famous, broke into the wrong home during a search for two fugitives and kept an innocent woman handcuffed for 30 minutes, according to legal documents.

Apparently the two celebrities involved were LaToya Jackson and Jack Osbourne. The article doesn't mention why the SWAT team was necessary, whether it was a "no knock" warrant, or other pertinent details. The victim is just lucky that she wasn't armed, or really, holding anything.

That includes both red-light cameras and the dreaded parking meter. Note, if you mess up and overstay at some meters in D.C. the fine can be $100.00. Also, note this excerpt:

In a March 11 memo to council members, ATS, the new company hired to operate the cameras for the city, admits that at least two of the ten fixed speed cameras have fallen out of calibration over the past eight months. The company refuses to disclose their location for fear the tickets would be overturned by a court.

Wow, how screwed up and corrupt is that. Do you think D.C. really cares? They're generating revenue, and that's what it's all about.